Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Iowa - population rank #30 ...3.1 million
New Hampshire - " #41 ... 1.3 million
Let me tell you about my home state: Pennsylvania - population rank #6 ... 12.8 million
One year ago a Democrat, Tom Wolf defeated the incumbent Republican Governor Corbett and moved into the governor's mansion in Harrisburg. In the same election 3 Republicans and 3 Democrats ran for 3 seats in the State Supreme Court; the Democrats won all 3 seats. Pennsylvania, once considered a "swing" state (Rick Santorum was from here - allegedly) shifted decidedly "blue."
The 140k number you have for Iowa isn't the actual voters, it was the state level delegates equiv's multplied by 100. lets stop with this idiocy....
I didn't make up those numbers. They came from the green page. But no matter.
The Iowa DNC chair, Luis Miranda has gone on record and stated that turnout for the Democrats was 171K. We don't actually know of course because he refuses to release the actual count.
So that changes it as follows. Still a substantial loss for the Democrats
I didn't make up those numbers. They came from the green page. But no matter.
The Iowa DNC chair, Luis Miranda has gone on record and stated that turnout for the Democrats was 171K. We don't actually know of course because he refuses to release the actual count.
So that changes it as follows. Still a substantial loss for the Democrats
I corrected my mistake. Thanks for pointing it out.
It didn't change the point. Democrats are losing massive numbers of voters. This doesn't bode will for them at all.
These numbers are still higher than they have typically been. 2008 completely shattered all sorts of records. The turnout isn't at 2008 levels, but still higher than normal. For example in 2004 the totals in Iowa were around 125,000, this year wasn't at the 2008 record, but still higher than 2004 and others in the past.
These numbers are still higher than they have typically been. 2008 completely shattered all sorts of records. The turnout isn't at 2008 levels, but still higher than normal. For example in 2004 the totals in Iowa were around 125,000, this year wasn't at the 2008 record, but still higher than 2004 and others in the past.
2004 wasn't an open election so comparisons between the two parties would not be applicable.
Democrats are losing 100s of 1000s of voters in last 8 years.
Results of the Iowa Caucus & New Hampshire Primary indicated the Democrats are lost significant number of voters between 2008 & 2016. This even though there were record turnouts and highly contested races. Furthermore more Republicans participated than Democrats in 2016. I don't think this has happened in NH in an open election year in a long time.
Iowa Democrat Caucus
2008 - 239,872
2016 - 140,548
Loss = 99,324
New Hampshire Democrat Primary
2008 - 287,557
2016 - 250,983
Loss = 36,574
On the other hand, these missing voters seem to have re-registered as Republicans
Iowa Republican Caucus
2008 - 119,200
2016 - 186,874
Gain = 67,674
New Hampshire Republican Primary
2008 - 234,851
2016 - 284,120
Gain = 49,269
So in just two small states, and one of them is decidedly a Blue state, the Democrats have lost 135,898 registered voters in just 8 years.
This is very bad news for where things are headed for the Democrats in the general election. Further proof that the Democrats have lost much of the middle class.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.